Search

Aim: To evaluate the correlation between subjective assessments of pancreatic hardness based on the palpation, objective measurements using a durometer, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings for assessing pancreatic hardness., Methods: Eighty-three patients undergoing pancreatectomies were enrolled. An experienced surgeon subjectively evaluated the pancreatic hardness in the surgical field by palpation. The pancreatic hardness was also objectively evaluated using a durometer. Preoperative MRI findings were evaluated by a radiologist in terms of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, the relative signal intensity decrease (RSID) of the pancreatic parenchyma, and the diameter of the pancreatic parenchyma and duct. Durometer measurement results, ADC values, RSID, pancreatic duct and parenchyma diameters, and the ratio of the diameters of the duct and parenchyma were compared between pancreases judged to be soft or hard pancreas on the palpation. A correlation analysis was also performed between the durometer and MRI measurements., Results: The palpation assessment classified 44 patients as having a soft pancreas and 39 patients as having a hard pancreas. ADC values were significantly lower in the hard pancreas group. The ductal diameter and duct-to-pancreas ratio were significantly higher in the hard pancreas group. For durometer measurements, a correlation analysis showed a positive correlation with the ductal diameter and the duct-to-pancreas ratio and a negative correlation with ADC values., Conclusion: Hard pancreases showed lower ADC values, a wider pancreatic duct diameter and a higher duct-to-pancreas ratio than soft pancreases. Additionally, the ADC values, diameter of the pancreatic duct and duct-to-pancreas ratio were closely correlated with the durometer results., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors are free from any economical or personal interest this paper may cause. There is no conflict of interest to report for any of the authors.

Aim: To evaluated patterns and outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT)., Methods: From 2001 to 2014, 293 patients underwent LDLT for HCC at our transplant center. We retrospectively reviewed 54 (18.4%) patients with HCC recurrence after LDLT. We evaluated patterns and outcomes of HCC recurrence after LDLT, with particular attention to the Milan criteria at transplantation, treatments for HCC-recurrent patients, and factors related to survival after HCC recurrence. Furthermore, we evaluated the efficacy of combination treatment of sorafenib and an mTOR inhibitor., Results: The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates after HCC recurrence were 41.1%, 20.5%, and 15.4%, respectively. The median time interval between LDLT and HCC recurrence was 6.5 mo. Although recurrence rates according to the Milan criteria at LDLT were significantly different, HCC recurrence patterns and survival rates after HCC recurrence were not significantly different between the two groups. Time to recurrence < 12 mo (P = 0.048), multiple recurrences at HCC recurrence (P = 0.038), and palliative treatment for recurrent tumors (P = 0.003) were significant independent prognostic factors for poor survival after HCC recurrence in a multivariate analysis. The combination treatment of sorafenib and sirolimus showed survival benefits in the palliative treatment group (P = 0.005)., Conclusion: Curative treatment for recurrent HCC after LDLT is the most important factor in survival rates after HCC recurrence and combination treatments of sorafenib and an mTOR inhibitor could have survival benefits in patients with HCC recurrence after LT in the palliative treatment group.

Aim: To select appropriate patients before surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), especially those with advanced tumors., Methods: From January 2000 to December 2012, we retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 298 patients who had undergone surgical resections for HCC with curative intent at our hospital. We evaluated preoperative prognostic factors associated with histologic grade of tumor, recurrence and survival, especially the findings of pre-operative imaging studies such as positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). And then, we established a scoring system to predict recurrence and survival after surgery dividing the patients into two groups based on a tumor size of 5 cm., Results: Of the 298 patients, 129 (43.3%) developed recurrence during the follow-up period. The 5 year disease free survival and overall survival were 47.0% and 58.7% respectively. In multivariate analysis, a serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level of > 100 ng/mL and a standardized uptake value (SUV) of PET-CT of > 3.5 were predictive factors for histologic grade of tumor, recurrence, and survival. Tumor size of > 5 cm and a relative enhancement ratio (RER) calculated from preoperative MRI were also significantly associated with prognosis in univariate analysis. We established a scoring system to predict prognosis using AFP, SUV, and RER. In those with tumors of > 5 cm, it showed predicted both recurrence (P = 0.005) and survival (P = 0.001)., Conclusion: The AFP, tumor size, SUV and RER are useful for prognosis preoperatively. An accurate prediction of prognosis is possible using our scoring system in large size tumors.

Aim: To investigate that inflammatory markers can predict accurately the prognosis of hepatocelluar carcinoma (HCC) patients in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT)., Methods: From October 2000 to November 2011, 224 patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation for HCC at our institution were enrolled in this study. We analyzed disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) after LT in patients with HCC and designed a new score model using pretransplant neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)., Results: The DFS and OS in patients with an NLR level ≥ 6.0 or CRP level ≥ 1.0 were significantly worse than those of patients with an NLR level < 6.0 or CRP level < 1.0 (P = 0.049, P = 0.003 for NLR and P = 0.010, P < 0.001 for CRP, respectively). Using a new score model using the pretransplant NLR and CRP, we can differentiate HCC patients beyond the Milan criteria with a good prognosis from those with a poor prognosis., Conclusion: Combined with the Milan criteria, new score model using NLR and CRP represent new selection criteria for LDLT candidates with HCC, especially beyond the Milan criteria.